Amazon's Kindle Fire tablet will take share away from Apple this quarter, cutting the iPad's share of the market to 59 percent, a new analysis claims.

Though Apple has regained ground from Android-based tablets in recent quarters, market research firm IDC believes the iPad's share of the market will slide in the December quarter due to gains from low-end tablets from Amazon and Barnes & Noble. The firm estimated that the iPad held on to a 61.5 percent worldwide market share in the third quarter, while expecting that number to dip below the 60 percent mark next quarter.

According to IDC, HP jumped up to second place in the tablet market in the third quarter, capturing a quick 5 percent share. Its presence was short-lived, though since the PC maker cleared out inventory after deciding to cancel the device just months after its release. Samsung came in third with a 5.6 percent share of the tablet market. Barnes & Noble's Nook Color took the fourth spot with 4.5 percent and Asus came in fifth with 4 percent share.

Google's Android OS saw a dip in total market share in the third quarter, down to 32.4 percent from 33.2 percent in the second quarter, but IDC sees Kindle Fire sales driving the platform past the 40 percent mark in the December quarter.

"Amazon and Barnes & Noble are shaking up the media tablet market, and their success helps prove that there is an appetite for media tablets beyond Apple's iPad," said IDC's Tom Mainelli, research director, Mobile Connected Devices.

A number of analysts have begun revising their iPad estimates on the assumption that Apple's tablet growth will be impacted by the Kindle Fire. Canaccord Genuity recently cut its iPad forecast by one million units in light of the Fire's strong launch. Amazon revealed on Thursday that it had sold millions of the device, which has been the online retailer's best-selling product for weeks now.

Mainelli does believe, however, that Apple is still set to have its best quarter ever during the period. According to him, Apple will also make gains with its iPad in the enterprise and education markets in 2012.

IDC analyst Jennifer Song viewed Apple's head start on tablet-specific apps, future iPad versions and expanding retail presence in Asia as helping the company to maintain its "global leadership," but she predicted Android will gain on its competitor in the near future.

"An improving Android OS experience and lower competitor pricing in an environment with worldwide economic concerns should help Android to increase its market share," she said.

I guess if we are calling the Kindle FIre a tablet, we might as well call the iPhone and iPod Touch tablets too. The Kindle Fire is just an oversized non-tablet Android device right? It isn't running Ice Cream Sandwich after all. It is just running the small form factor operating system.

I would argue that the Fire is so modified that should not be considered Android. Amazon took the core Android code and completely re-written the UI layer and in turn removed all the Google services. Google makes ~ $0 from Fire sales

The jury is out if selling the Fire at a lose is a sustainable strategy. Amazon is likely losing $30 to $40 for every Fire sold at retail stores

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

And, if people would base their purchases solely on quality and features, next quarter should belong to the Asus Transformer Prime instead. However, inertia and price will likely cause the current best sellers to keep their positions.

I wonder what will happen when Amazon starts selling the Kindle Fire internationally...

I would argue that the Fire is so modified that should not be considered Android. Amazon took the core Android code and completely re-written the UI layer and in turn removed all the Google services. Google makes ~ $0 from Fire sales

The jury is out if selling the Fire at a lose is a sustainable strategy. Amazon is likely losing $30 to $40 for every Fire sold at retail stores

There are more recent figures on Fire costs which is estimated to be around $200 per device to make. So they are probably losing $1 per device. Amazon only need to sell three songs or half a book to make that up.

But you are right about Fire not being real android. I think it should be classed as a breakaway and figures kept seperately for both OSes.

iPad isn't part of the "tablet market" -- it's in a market of its own called the iPad market where it has 100% domination.

The Kindle Fire isn't a tablet either -- it is an Amazon Shopping device and should have been named "Amazon Mall" or something.

The Kindle Fire is apparently experiencing good sales but also a high return rate -- at what point do these returns get deducted from original sales figures?

Lumped in with the "tablet market", Apple earns the highest revenue from iPad sales -- how are sales of Amazon's Fire going to be accounted for, given that most in the industry believe it is being sold below cost? For example, if someone buys something using the Fire, will a certain percentage of that sale be attributed to the use of the Fire, say $0.05 for each $ spend? Or will Amazon take a hit every year just to get the Fire out there? Or be forced to raise the price at some point in the near future?

Apple are doing the hard yards necessary to keep iOS in front, such as content details on the legal side and hi-dpi displays and Siri on the tech side. They are not shying away from hard problems, which I think bodes well for the long termness of the iDevices.

If the Kindle is classified as a tablet then the iPad is classified as a PC.

I'm fine with Kindle being a tablet, and iPad being a tablet. But iPad is also a PC. End of story.

Click Like if you agree (oh, wait...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sip

iPad isn't part of the "tablet market" -- it's in a market of its own called the iPad market where it has 100% domination.

The Kindle Fire isn't a tablet either -- it is an Amazon Shopping device and should have been named "Amazon Mall" or something.

The Kindle Fire is apparently experiencing good sales but also a high return rate -- at what point do these returns get deducted from original sales figures?

Lumped in with the "tablet market", Apple earns the highest revenue from iPad sales -- how are sales of Amazon's Fire going to be accounted for, given that most in the industry believe it is being sold below cost? For example, if someone buys something using the Fire, will a certain percentage of that sale be attributed to the use of the Fire, say $0.05 for each $ spend? Or will Amazon take a hit every year just to get the Fire out there? Or be forced to raise the price at some point in the near future?

There are more recent figures on Fire costs which is estimated to be around $200 per device to make. So they are probably losing $1 per device. Amazon only need to sell three songs or half a book to make that up.

But you are right about Fire not being real android. I think it should be classed as a breakaway and figures kept seperately for both OSes.

Yeah... if Amazon sells a few songs or books... that gets them back up to ZERO.

Apps, books and music simply aren't big profit makers.

I guess they are counting on people paying $80 a year for Prime... and ordering all their things from Amazon.

That's been Amazon's deal all along... they sell other people's stuff to make a tiny profit.

If you buy a Sony TV from Amazon... Sony gets most of that money...

But Prime can't be a big money-maker either. Amazon is footing the bill for all that "free" shipping you get. Plus all the licensing fees they must be paying for all that "free" content you get with Amazon Prime.

This is what happens when you take a handheld Unix computer and cripple it so obscenely that a dinky E-reader can compete with it.

Apple is getting what it deserves, for idiotically hampering developers from doing most of what you'd expect an $800 portable computer to do. You know, crazy things like legitimate I/O, syncing data between apps and counterpart apps on the computer, proper Bluetooth support, access to the dock port...

Apple doesn't learn. They witnessed the demise of DRM, but learned nothing from it. When the stupidest executives on the planet (record-company execs) can learn something like that, you're a total disgrace if you keep pursuing anti-customer and anti-developer policies the way Apple does.

Apple has always stuck its head in the sand and pretended not to know what it needs to do to compete. Well, it's time to pull your head out of your ass, Apple.

With personal computers, Apple decided on exclusivity and price over market share, and Windows won the war. Hopefully (at least for them) they will not let the same thing happen with tablets. Should Amazon come out with a 10" fire for $350, does Apple respond? Or do they stubbornly stick with the high price for high quality model and watch the majority of buyers go for value?

Yeah... if Amazon sells a few songs or books... that gets them back up to ZERO.

Apps, books and music simply aren't big profit makers.

I guess they are counting on people paying $80 a year for Prime... and ordering all their things from Amazon.

That's been Amazon's deal all along... they sell other people's stuff to make a tiny profit.

If you buy a Sony TV from Amazon... Sony gets most of that money...

But Prime can't be a big money-maker either. Amazon is footing the bill for all that "free" shipping you get. Plus all the licensing fees they must be paying for all that "free" content you get with Amazon Prime.

I guess they'll make it up in volume!

It's much worse. Total bill of materials for the Fire is slightly higher than they sell for but that is only what they cost to MAKE. Then there are additional costs of marketing. packaging distribution and so on... Probably at least another $50. On top of that Amazon have razor thin margins on most of what they sell. The turnover is in the billions but the profit is only millions (single digit margins) so to start making money of of the fire they would have to sell content for hundreds of dollars to just break eaven. Someone has done the numbers and i think it was around $1250 or so...

If they want to make what Apple is making just on the iPad *hardware* (no content) they would need to add another $150 to that. Making the revenue they would have to make per Fire something around $5000.

Considering the fact that Amazon is a publicly traded company, do they have a legal obligation to declare to investors how much money is made from each stream? Can they simply say that they made an overall profit of $x or do they have to declare the money made from their tablet sales and other sales?

If they do declare their profits/ losses based on tablets then there may a better idea as to how many are sold. At the same time, they would not subtract a sale if there was a return, so how does that figure out?

It's much worse. Total bill of materials for the Fire is slightly higher than they sell for but that is only what they cost to MAKE. Then there are additional costs of marketing. packaging distribution and so on... Probably at least another $50. On top of that Amazon have razor thin margins on most of what they sell. The turnover is in the billions but the profit is only millions (single digit margins) so to start making money of of the fire they would have to sell content for hundreds of dollars to just break eaven. Someone has done the numbers and i think it was around $1250 or so...

If they want to make what Apple is making just on the iPad *hardware* (no content) they would need to add another $150 to that. Making the revenue they would have to make per Fire something around $5000.

Makes Apples current strategy look a bit more attractive right?

And remember, this is without any content revenue on the iPad.

So true.

Amazon and Apple definitely have different strategies with regards to tablets.

Amazon sells the Kindle Fire at a loss... and the only profit they (hope to) get is from apps, music, videos, books, etc.

While Apple sells the iPad at a decent profit... and gets additional money from apps, music, videos, books, etc.

Surely someone at Amazon has thought this through

But hey... Amazon has always been the king of high-volume, low-margin sales.

Considering the fact that Amazon is a publicly traded company, do they have a legal obligation to declare to investors how much money is made from each stream? Can they simply say that they made an overall profit of $x or do they have to declare the money made from their tablet sales and other sales?

If they do declare their profits/ losses based on tablets then there may a better idea as to how many are sold. At the same time, they would not subtract a sale if there was a return, so how does that figure out?

Amazon has kept quiet about e-ink Kindle sales for years.

Who knows if they will start talking now.

Someday the plan of losing money on the hardware with the hopes of making it up in content might backfire on them.

Turns out... most people don't pay for stuff. People might just use their Kindle Fire for web browsing.... for free. Whoops.

Amazon might have to disclose their financials if they ever get in trouble.

As with the iPhone the iPad may indeed lose market share yet continue to see wild growth in sales. Somehow lack of market share translates to declining sales and failure in the minds of some people. This is not the case for iOS devices of course, but the mindset is there apparently. And market share does not appear to be encouraging developers to flock to Android according to recent reports, Eric Schmidt's RDF not withstanding. The accepted importance of market share by the pundits has never seemed to apply to Apple but the "Apple is falling behind" mantra, even in the face of double digit sales growth, is out there for investors to chew on.

Apple doesn't learn. They witnessed the demise of DRM, but learned nothing from it.

Just that one sentence is proof you don't know anything about Apple or even their recent history. The end of DRM in music was pushed for by Apple, beginning with Jobs' open letter on DRM in 2007. EMI then let the way with DRM-free music on the iTunes store. The rest of the music industry then tried to give Amazon a leg up by offering DRM-free music to them before Apple, but the tactic failed and Apple got DRM-free access within a year.

You'd still be downloading sabotaged MP3s on BearShare if not for Apple getting the music industry to wake up.

With personal computers, Apple decided on exclusivity and price over market share, and Windows won the war. Hopefully (at least for them) they will not let the same thing happen with tablets. Should Amazon come out with a 10" fire for $350, does Apple respond? Or do they stubbornly stick with the high price for high quality model and watch the majority of buyers go for value?

They only won the war if you think the war lasted just 15 years. History is long. Even in corporate IT, Windows is losing its grip. As more business apps go HTML5 for their interfaces, platform lock-in will continue to fade. I'm not even saying that Apple wins that battle in the long, long term, but Windows certainly hasn't won the war.

That's been Amazon's deal all along... they sell other people's stuff to make a tiny profit.

If you buy a Sony TV from Amazon... Sony gets most of that money...

But Prime can't be a big money-maker either. Amazon is footing the bill for all that "free" shipping you get. Plus all the licensing fees they must be paying for all that "free" content you get with Amazon Prime.

I guess they'll make it up in volume!

You know, Amazon is a retailer, and that's pretty much how retail works. Margins are often razor thin.

As for Prime, I suspect it's kinda like a gym membership. For every person who uses the service daily, there are 5 who use it once and forget about it.

There are more recent figures on Fire costs which is estimated to be around $200 per device to make. So they are probably losing $1 per device. Amazon only need to sell three songs or half a book to make that up.

I really wish people would stop posting incorrect information - and learn something about business finances before posting at all.

The figures you're referring to say that the bill of materials is $200. That does not include any other costs - packaging, shipping, quality costs, rework costs, assembly labor, plant overhead, miscellaneous materials (tape, solder, connectors, etc), tech support costs, license fees. Those costs probably add at least $50 a unit.

In addition, there are all the indirect costs that have to be amortized over the number of units sold. The cost to modify Android. Design costs. Marketing costs. Sales costs. Management overhead.

From the revenue side, they don't get to count the entire cost of the songs or books they sell. First 70% goes to the author, so Amazon only keeps 30%. From that 30%, they need to pay for the infrastructure to handle the electronic distribution. What is left is gross margin which can be applied to subsidize the Fire sale. For Apple, the profit on iTunes sales is close to zero. Let's assume that Amazon is more efficient than Apple in this regard, but it is unlikely that they can apply more than 10% of the sale price toward the subsidy. So if they lose $50 per unit (to be conservative), they need $500 in media sales JUST TO BREAK EVEN.

And break even isn't the point. They could break even by not doing anything. Most companies expect to make a profit - which would typically require a net gross margin in the 15-30% range. So they really have to sell a couple thousand dollars worth of media per Fire to make a decent return.

Amazon needs to sell a lot more than 3 songs or books to make that.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I really wish people would stop posting incorrect information - and learn something about business finances before posting at all..

Trying to guess what Amazon actually paid for each Fire doesn't make that figure a fact.

Did Amazon get a big discount since they were willing to use the old basic Playbook platform instead of starting from scratch? Is the iSuppli component pricing verified/adjusted based on quantities purchased for a particular device build? How much profit does Amazon see from a typical e-book purchase? Is it more or less percentage-wise than what they realize from hard products? Is Amazon getting related advertising revenue from clicks in their Silk browser? Is Amazon better at controlling packaging/handling costs than Apple or getting better shipping terms? Is Amazon getting a better hardware deal because they were willing to pay upfront? Do they get a more favorable price because of volume commitments, just as some here claim Apple does? Even the build estimates from various sources swing nearly 40% from either extreme ($150 to around $210, and there may even be higher ones). Which ones are somewhat accurate?

If you don't know the factual answers to most of those questions, then you're making your best educated estimate whether Amazon is making a profit or losing a boatload every time they sell one. Stating as a fact that Amazon is losing at least x-number of dollars on hardware, or needs to sell x-volume of content to break even is all good guessing at best.

This is what happens when you take a handheld Unix computer and cripple it so obscenely that a dinky E-reader can compete with it.

Apple is getting what it deserves, for idiotically hampering developers from doing most of what you'd expect an $800 portable computer to do. You know, crazy things like legitimate I/O, syncing data between apps and counterpart apps on the computer, proper Bluetooth support, access to the dock port...

Apple doesn't learn. They witnessed the demise of DRM, but learned nothing from it. When the stupidest executives on the planet (record-company execs) can learn something like that, you're a total disgrace if you keep pursuing anti-customer and anti-developer policies the way Apple does.

Apple has always stuck its head in the sand and pretended not to know what it needs to do to compete. Well, it's time to pull your head out of your ass, Apple.

Heh. This is what happens when you take a handheld Unix computer (i.e., one of the most rock-solid operating systems ever made, without the IP encumbrance of Java) and make it easy to use for the masses. This is what happens when "IT" becomes "I" and what "I" want to do with it, not some geek telling me I should install this or tweak that or scan something unintelligible. Where doing something doesn't mean having to "call IT" or "check with my computer guy".

Legitimate I/O? That's called cloud storage. Otherwise even if you don't use the cloud there's plenty of wired and wireless transfer options. USB thumb drives seem positively ancient now. USB drives are now the equivalent of when 5.25" floppies went bye-bye. Syncing data between apps? Again, cloud and Dropbox, wireless iTunes, Airplay, etc. Dock port? Nice for charging. For everything else, well, that's what Macs are for, not iPads. Not at this stage, but stay tuned.

There are some things you no longer need a Mac to do. The list grows day by day.

Apple learnt a lot. They are significantly responsible FOR the demise of DRM. iTunes Match will essentially grant a amnesty for massive amounts of pirated music. There's literally no other major tech company out there that has been as pro-customer and pro-developer as Apple. Just wait for the Siri API to open up.

Apple knows what it needs to do to compete, and that is to make products and software that works well within a controlled but not ridiculously-confied system.

Guess who's anti-customer? Try playing back YouTube on Xbox360's latest updates. Firstly, it took years to get YouTube on your console. Secondly, you need to PAY ie. Xbox Live GOLD. Still, Xbox360 gaming is light years beyond trying to game on a PC nowadays.

My wife works in education as an instructional coach (helping teachers be better is the simplest way to describe her job). The district is considering buying them iPads. My wife says that the iPad is overkill for their needs.

If you know you aren't going to need and use all the features of the iPad and you are looking to control expenditures then one of those other tablet like devices might be the correct choice.

Kind of like why buy a car that can go 200 mph when you know you are only going to drive 75?

Of course some of the people want the iPad just because it is the coolest thing out there. Even though they don't make sense in this instance. These are the type of people you don't want in charge of spending the taxpayer money the district runs on.

My wife works in education as an instructional coach (helping teachers be better is the simplest way to describe her job). The district is considering buying them iPads. My wife says that the iPad is overkill for their needs.

If you know you aren't going to need and use all the features of the iPad and you are looking to control expenditures then one of those other tablet like devices might be the correct choice.

Kind of like why buy a car that can go 200 mph when you know you are only going to drive 75?

Of course some of the people want the iPad just because it is the coolest thing out there. Even though they don't make sense in this instance. These are the type of people you don't want in charge of spending the taxpayer money the district runs on.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

As others have said ... what the heck have Kindle Fire sales got to do with iPad 2 sales figures. They are not in the same product category and if they are then so are iPhones and iPods. Just silliness for the sake of attention grabbing headlines. You might as well have a report stating that world wide sales of bicycles are pushing BMW motorbike sales lower on a graph somewhere.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Worse that him not knowing what he is talking about, his wife is clearly a useless teacher with zero understanding of the potential of a interactive system such as the iPad offers for education. She is limiting the concept to an alternative for a reading device. Sad, very sad such people are allowed near children.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Analysts have forever been obtuse about technology. If it looks like a PC and acts like a PC then it must be a PC, even if its primary purpose is to make toast.

Likewise, the Fire is functionally an enhanced e-reader in a tablet format. The lockdown of function, the tethering of services means it is not the same class of device as the iPad (or the TouchPad, or the Xoom, Transformer, Iconia, Archos 101 or Thrive for that matter). Comparisons serve no purpose but to point out that significant difference - except to those completely baffled by the superficial resemblance.

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one

This is what happens when you take a handheld Unix computer and cripple it so obscenely that a dinky E-reader can compete with it.

Apple is getting what it deserves, for idiotically hampering developers from doing most of what you'd expect an $800 portable computer to do. You know, crazy things like legitimate I/O, syncing data between apps and counterpart apps on the computer, proper Bluetooth support, access to the dock port...

Apple doesn't learn. They witnessed the demise of DRM, but learned nothing from it. When the stupidest executives on the planet (record-company execs) can learn something like that, you're a total disgrace if you keep pursuing anti-customer and anti-developer policies the way Apple does.

Apple has always stuck its head in the sand and pretended not to know what it needs to do to compete. Well, it's time to pull your head out of your ass, Apple.

Three things.

1. The Kindle Fire is also a handheld Unix device.
2. The paradigm in the smartphone tablet space is universally the same - locked down controlled access to the hardware and in the software layer. One can argue the pros and cons of that approach, but it's not an Apple specific approach.
3. Your armchair management aside, I think there's quite a consensus that Apple knows how to compete ... and has succeeded quite well at it.

Apple solved its market share problem quite a few years ago. They decided it was more important to secure revenue and profits instead of market share. If market share follows (which it increasingly seems to do) then so be it.

The problem with these types of predictions is that they ignore Apple's historical approach. There is a strong possibility Apple will follow the strategy the followed in the iPhone segment, which is to continue with prior generation versions at lower price points. Imagine an iPad 2 at $250 or $299. It makes consideration of a Nook or Kindle Fire even more unlikely.